tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 03 18:33:21 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ditransitives
Sat, 3 Jun 1995 ghItlh 'Iwvan:
[good summary of Klingon sentence structure omitted]
> The {nob} examples in _PK_ deviate strongly from this. The verb in them
> doesn't agree in person and number with the object (the bare noun phrase
> located before it); rather, it agrees with an oblique constituent, which
> would be marked by a Type 5 suffix, if it were present (eg {jIHvaD}).
> Such a construction is not catered for by _tKD_; it could be a late
> addition to the grammar, perhaps an unconscious anglicism, in view of
> the superficial similarity between {chab HInob} and _give me the pie_.
I agree that the {HInob} usage is somewhat anomolous and it doesn't seem
to fit well with usual pattern of Klingon syntax.
It seems Okrand added the dative construction only as an afterthough. In
the first edition TKD, it was overlooked entirely and there was no
mention of how to indicate the indirect object of {nob}. When the second
edition TKD came out, the first thing I did was look in the supplement to
see if he added any useful new Type 5 suffixes such as the dative "to", the
instrumental "with, by means of", or a suffix meaning "about, concerning".
I was pleased to find that there is now a way to indicate the indirect
object of a verb but I'm still disappointed that we don't have other useful
oblique case markers.
But if I had the ability to add any one, single thing to the Klingon
grammar, I would add still the following Type 5 suffix:
1. -xxx instrumental "with, by means of". Used to denote the
instrument of an action:
tajwIjxxx qama' vIHoHta'. (I killed the prisoner with my knife.)
Hoqra'xxx 'och QeDpIn. (The science officer scans the tunnel with a
tricorder.)
I have always felt that our attempts to get around this by
using two verbs, accompanied by {-meH}, {-taHvIS} or {-bogh} are
clumsy and inadequate and the omission of such a suffix is an oversight.
(Perhaps someone needs to interrogate Maltz further...) {{;-)
> Question (to be added to the `Ask Marc' list, I presume): Which other
> verbs behave like {nob}? It is indeed conceivable that causatives
> formed from transitive verb might belong to this category. (They do
> in Arabic, for instance.)
Please explain to this layman what causatives are.
> --'Iwvan
yoDtargh